Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House once again to speak to Bill C-3. It is a very important bill that seeks to respond to an important court challenge calling into question citizenship law in Canada. It would do so by pointing to an inconsistency in citizenship law that has to be rectified in order for it to be what it should always be: equal and applicable to all.
In my previous speech on Bill C-3, I began by talking about the philosopher Hannah Arendt, who famously said that citizenship is “the right to have rights”. Without citizenship, we cannot even speak about democracy.
The bill would codify into law what we all know, which is that all of us, as individuals, have certain inalienable rights. If democracy is to mean anything and stand for anything at all, citizenship matters. In our case, as Canadians, citizenship and the rights it entails, such as freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of expression and all of the freedoms we hold dear, are codified in our charter. A perfect example of that is when citizenship entails living up to the expression of rights, which, without that document, cannot be held in high regard at all.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled in December 2023 that citizenship law in Canada is not consistent. In fact, it is two-tiered. It came to that decision because Canadians who obtain their citizenship either through birth or through naturalization can pass down that citizenship to their children, but this is not true of Canadians who are born abroad. Bill C-3 seeks to rectify that. How would it do so? It would all Canadians who were born abroad and have children born abroad to pass down their citizenship. That would address the Ontario court decision of December 2023, which said the fact that this right does not currently exist and is not currently available stands as an inconsistency. It goes against the equality provisions under the charter.
There is a very important condition, though, that the government has added, which is that there must be a substantial connection to Canada that is upheld over a cumulative period of three years. That is required. This is a very important condition that allows for citizenship to be meaningful, and it is something that advocates have called for for a long time.
I know colleagues across the aisle will point to other ways of achieving this goal. At committee, the Conservatives worked with the Bloc on a number of amendments, which were passed at committee but defeated here, as we saw yesterday. Colleagues in the House have raised concerns about that, but I would remind them that, ultimately, it is the House of Commons that decides. The House of Commons has various committees, and amendments can be passed there, but we have report stage for a reason. I thank the NDP for working with us to restore the bill, in essence, to its original form. The bill is justified and needed, and it speaks to the needs of the moment.
We have to respond to this court ruling. November 20 is the date by which we have been asked to respond. I would urge colleagues to think about being as expeditious as possible in getting the bill out of the House of Commons and over to the Senate so that senators can look at it and it can ultimately receive royal assent. This is of paramount importance. Think about what is at stake.
Canadian identity and citizenship can mean many things, but I go back to the example of a Canadian born abroad who also has children born abroad. They would certainly feel very close to Canada and feel a real tie to Canada. They could have served Canada as a diplomat or a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, or by participating in non-government organizations. A substantial connection builds through experiences like these. We could think of many other examples as well.
That substantial connection needs to be understood, and it is understood and respected in this bill. It would be cumulative, not consecutive. What does that mean? Think of a diplomat who was born in another country, like Germany or France. They would have the opportunity, as a diplomat, to spend time in Canada, but perhaps be stationed or assigned to different postings abroad. A consecutive stay in Canada is therefore not always possible, but a cumulative requirement in the bill would allow for that diplomat to still maintain that connection to Canada. It would allow that diplomat, under the provisions of the bill, to meet the requirement so that citizenship could be passed down.
Colleagues have raised this concern about the consecutive requirement that they hoped would be in the bill. However, a cumulative requirement is what the government has gone with, for reasons I have talked about today and in my previous speech, and it is entirely justified.
Again, November 20 is the court deadline. We have an opportunity now to move forward with this bill. I hope colleagues get behind it. I am still struggling to understand exactly what the issue is, although I am sure that my colleagues will raise that in the comments and questions. We have an opportunity to abide by the deadline. Yes, amendments were made, but the House of Commons' procedures allow for those amendments to be overturned, and they were.
I am thankful for the time, and I look forward to questions.